To: Spencer Museum of Art: I am not a member of Facebook, so am communicating with you this way, please post it to your
wall.

This type of event, using sentient beings to make some bizarre point, is morally wrong. If the individuals involved are
non-consenting adults, i.e., incapable of giving informed consent, as in mentally challenged people, prisoners, children, and nonhuman
animals, they should not be used, exploited and then murdered to make an art statement. It’s sad and shocking that I have to
explain this to you. As a vegan and an artist that has spent her entire life fighting for animals not to be murdered for human
entertainment and 'food' -- this type of exhibit is revolting, and an insult to all the artists, people with a mind, animal rescuers, and
animal protectors in this country who educate others about cruelty to animals and promote a vegan alternative. There is no
“humane” way to take another's life. If you think having your throat cut is “humane,” then I suggest you try
it on yourselves first, as a real test of your humanity. Community members can stand by, sharing fond stories of their interaction
with you, and can witness this event, to remind themselves of the intersection of arrogance and stupidity. Sue Coe

--------------------

STEPHEN F. EISENMAN
Professor of Art History
Northwestern University

The following is the email letter I sent to the Spencer director, curator of modern art, and curator of contemporary art:

Dear Dr. Hardy,

I read with interest that your museum is planning an exhibition called, "The Story of Chickens: A Revolution." As a scholar of modern
art, and historian of the image of animals in art (the subject of my forthcoming book), I must tell you that there is nothing
"revolutionary" about your exhibition or its subject.

The depiction in words and images of the killing or exploitation of animals for the purpose of encouraging kindness extends back more than
two hundred years. Such works -- and John Lawrence's profusely illustrated treatises circa 1800 come to mind -- always supported the
most conventional of beliefs: that humans are the crown of creation (the pinnacle of the "Great Chain of Being") and possess the
God-given right to own, exploit and kill any animal, so long as the slaughter is done humanely. This line of reasoning -- sometimes
called "welfarist" -- has sanctioned the killing of billions upon billions of animals every year, usually in the cruelest manner
imaginable.

What is avant-garde, even "revolutionary" today -- because it refutes the cruel, old stereotypes -- is the view that animals are sentient
creatures who possess a right to life and autonomy. This perspective is embraced by many scientists, (such as the pioneering ethologist
Donald Griffin) philosophers (such as Bruno Latour) artists, (including Sue Coe), and writers (for example J.M. Coetzee).

In the interests of a progressive museology and simple humanity, I ask you to cancel the planned exhibition, "The Story of Chickens" and to
renounce any killing of animals for the sake of art-making.

With respect,

Stephen F. Eisenman
Professor of Art History
Northwestern University
(Curator, "Gauguin: Artist of Myth and Dreams," "The Ecology of Impressionism,” "Design in the Age of Darwin," etc.)

-----------------------

ELIZABETH SCHULTZ
Former faculty member of the University of Lawrence
Member of the Board of Directors of the Spencer Museum of Art

To: Spencer Museum of Art:

Last night I received the following news regarding an upcoming event at the
Spencer, and I must say that it causes me deep concern. Although I recognize
the SMA's desire to engage our community in provocative and meaningful
discussions (and I must assume that this is the visiting artist's intention
as well), I am nonetheless distressed by the Spencer's decision to endorse
and encourage a project which sponsors the actual (not figurative) deaths of
five animals.

It is disturbing to me that the Spencer would be associated with the
slaughter of these animals, especially after they had been well and even
lovingly cared for within the museum for a month. Certainly, the project
forces viewers and participants to consider the inhumane treatment of
millions of animals in slaughterhouses throughout the US and the world and
the disjuncture that is made between the living animal and the consumption
of meat. I question, however, whether the Spencer needs to enact the final
part--the chickens' slaughter--of Amber Hansen's project in order to make
these points. I feel strongly that the entire project demonstrates human
power over and control of animals (the androcentric position, perspective),
which is crucial for us to acknowledge, but that its culmination in their
planned deaths and a gourmet meal is cynical and fascistic. Although the
deaths would occur off site (away from the museum), I feel that the
museum would be tainted, blood-splattered forever.

I very much hope that the Spencer's program planners will 1) consider
alternative ways of asking questions about the complexity of humans'
relationships with animals in general and about the implications of the
corporate meat industry in particular and 2) eliminate this particular
project from its spring programming. I certainly will be glad to discuss
this with you in person. Elizabeth Schultz

---------------------

SAVANNA SCARBOROUGH

To: Spencer Museum of Art:

This project would be more aptly named, "The Story of Chickens: A Betrayal." The description of Hansen's proposed 'art
installation' is a sanctimonious crock, exceeded only by her alarming lack of consciousness and clarity of intention within
the project itself. If volunteers and community members became true guardians of these birds, and came to see and
care for them as the sentient individuals they are, they would not in good faith then turn on their friends, watch
their murder, and shamelessly eat them the next day. I would personally view that as a form of cannibalism. Children are
naturally keyed in to the natural world, sensitive to their true connection with non-human animals; they haven't yet been
desensitized by society to put on their blinders and to accept the false proposition that certain animals are
our food and other animals, our companions. They also get the inherent betrayal of trust when animals they've cared for and
raised are then slaughtered.

If Hansen were to present an 'art project' that would begin to challenge the hypocritical bias of the kinds of
megalomaniacal assumptions about food animals corporatocracy promotes, it might merit approval as a kind of revolution,
though I wouldn't be so unctuous as to call it art; leave that to great artists! I fervently ask that Spencer Art Museum
withdraw its support of Ms. Hansen's ill-conceived project, because not only is it not art, it contradicts and turns
into a sham the deeper, more truthful meaning of her statement: “Interacting with animals allows us a more
complete understanding of humanity; it reminds us of our relationship with the natural world, and our responsibility in caring for
it." Savanna Scarborough